Small Cell Tower Ordinance Discussed May 14 2019

Article Source: City of San Bruno - CA

AGENDA - SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING - May 14, 2019 - 5:30 p.m.

Meeting Location: San Bruno Senior Center, 1555 Crystal Springs Road, San Bruno, CA

City Council meetings are conducted in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised and City Council Rules of Procedure. All regular Council meetings are recorded and televised on CATV Channel 1 and replayed the following Thursday, at 2:00 pm. Recordings of the City Council meetings are available for listening at the City Clerk's Office and video of the City Council meetings may be viewed at www.sanbruno.ca.gov. Audio CDs with recordings of City Council meetings may be purchased at the City Clerk’s office, or may be listened to at the San Bruno Library. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals requiring reasonable accommodations or appropriate alternative formats for notices, agendas and records for this meeting should notify us 48 hours prior to meeting. Please call the City Clerk’s Office 650-616-7061, or email your request to Melissa Thurman, City Clerk at mthurman@sanbruno.ca.gov.

• CALL TO ORDER
• ROLL CALL
• PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA
• SPECIAL MEETING:
• ADJOURNMENT:

Individuals allowed three minutes, groups in attendance, five minutes. It is the Council's policy to refer matters raised in this forum to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate. The Brown Act prohibits the Council from discussing or acting upon any matter not agendized pursuant to State Law.

a. Receive Update on Draft Small Wireless Facilities Ordinance and Draft Resolution with Small Wireless Facilities Design and Siting Guidelines, Engineering Design Standards, and

Standard Conditions of Approval and Provide Feedback to Staff on Draft Ordinance and Resolution

Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO

DATE: May 14, 2019

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

PREPARED BY: Darcy Smith, Community Development Director

SUBJECT: Receive Update on Draft Small Wireless Facilities Ordinance and Draft

Resolution with Small Wireless Facilities Design and Siting Guidelines, Engineering Design Standards, and Standard Conditions of Approval and Provide Feedback to Staff on Draft Ordinance and Resolution

BACKGROUND:

To ensure that the City has an adopted Ordinance and Resolution to ensure the regulation of small wireless facilities consistent with recently adopted Federal regulations, this agenda item seeks input on the proposed Draft Small Wireless Facility Ordinance amending Title 8 (Streets, Sidewalks, and Rights-of-Way) of the San Bruno Municipal Code and accompanying Draft Resolution Adopting Design and Siting Guidelines, Engineering Design Standards, and Standard Conditions of Approval for Small Wireless Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way and Within Utility Easements in Public and Private Properties. The Draft Ordinance is provided as Attachment 1 and the Draft Resolution is provided as Attachment 2.

On September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order geared toward speeding up the deployment of small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way and public utility easements (hereafter, the “FCC ruling”). The FCC ruling, which went into effect January 14, 2019, sets forth limitations on state and local government regulation of small wireless facilities that are placed on existing or new utility poles and street light standards located in the public right-of-way and public utility easements. The FCC ruling clarifies and more specifically restricts the authority of state and local governments to regulate small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way and public utility easements. This ruling is significant in that there are several nuances in small “cell” wireless facilities technology and application, which set them apart from other wireless communication facilities. On December 10, 2018, the FCC denied local governments’ motion for a stay on the regulations but ruled that to the extent agencies chose to impose aesthetic requirements, they

would not go into effect until April 15, 2019, allowing agencies an additional 90 days to establish and publish aesthetic standards. The City published draft Guidelines on its website and is now preparing the final revisions to the Ordinance and Guidelines for adoption.

A new network of telecommunications infrastructure known as a Small Wireless Facility has emerged as a result of growing capacity demands. Small Wireless Facility networks are comprised of a series of small low-powered wireless antenna facilities that have much smaller coverage areas than typical wireless facilities usually located on private property, typically a range of approximately 150 to 500 feet. Small Wireless Facility networks provide increased

capacity and data transfer rates to existing coverage areas as well as improved service to areas with weak or limited coverage.

Small wireless facilities are installed on poles within the public right-of-way and utility easements in public and private properties. They differ from the types of wireless facilities the City has previously encountered in the number of antennas and the power supplied to the antennas. The small wireless facilities are typically located on existing poles such as utility poles, streetlights or traffic signals that are 25- to 50-feet in height. Small wireless facility equipment will usually consists of a 2 to 4-foot tall antenna at the top of the pole, an electric meter, compact transmitters, receivers and other components that are also attached to the pole. Some facilities also include a ground mounted battery back-up cabinet.

In accordance with state Public Utilities Code section 7901, telephone companies, which include wireless telecommunications service providers, have a statutory right to place equipment (i.e. small wireless facility) in the public right-of-way and utility easements. However, in accordance with Public Utilities Code section 7901 .1, cities have the statutory right to regulate the design, location, and placement of the equipment. However, this authority is limited in that local regulations cannot: 1) effectively prohibit the provision of wireless telecommunications service or 2) unreasonably discriminate among providers of wireless telecommunications service.

The FCC, at the urging of the cellular network industry, passed a declaratory ruling (FCC­CIRC1 809-02) known as the “Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment” on September 24, 2018. The FCC Order defines small wireless facility, provides for the expedited processing (“shot clock”) of small wireless facility applications, limits the fees that can be assessed by municipalities on the review of these applications, and places limitations on discretionary aesthetic considerations. The new application review “shot clock” for small wireless facilities is 60 days for placement on an existing structure and 90 days for installation of a new structure.

In response, a coalition of municipalities requested a stay of the FCC order which was denied. This means municipalities must respond to applications that are submitted after January 15, 2019 pursuant to the new “shot clocks”. The aesthetic guidelines for small wireless facilities must be established and published by April 15, 2019. However, the coalition is continuing to litigate the case on behalf of the member cities, including San Bruno.

Current City Wireless Facility Regulations and Applications

Currently, San Bruno regulates wireless facilities pursuant to Section 12.220 of the municipal code, which requires a Conditional Use Permit to establish a new wireless facility within a residential district among other requirements. These regulations were originally developed to regulate the placement of large macro wireless facilities on private and public properties, which are not subject to the FCC-CIRC1809-02. This approval process historically takes a minimum of 90 days to process from application submittal to final action by the Planning Commission. Included within this review period is a detailed peer review of the radio frequency emissions compliance report by an outside consultant on behalf of the City.

In mid-2018, the Planning Commission approved a small wireless facility Use Permit in front of the property at 123 Elm, and then a neighbor appealed the decision to the City Council. The City Council upheld the appeal, finding that the facility was inconsistent with the height of other infrastructure in the neighborhood. Verizon then sued the City in federal court, seeking to

invalidate the City’s current ordinance as too restrictive, and asking the court to overturn the City Council’s decision. The case is currently pending. Parties have agreed to mediation, which is expected to occur within the next several months. The mediation is expected to address the 123 Elm appeal as well as the other eight sites that Verizon claims have been deemed approved. Verizon claims, and the City Disputes, that this application has been deemed approved based on these shot clock rules.

Because the City’s current regulations were not developed with the purpose and intent to regulate small wireless facilities, it is not feasible for the City to continue to process a discretionary Conditional Use Permit application to establish a new small wireless within the new FCC mandated review periods. In order to ensure full compliance with the FCC Order, the City must establish a new Ordinance and application, review and decision process, as well as Design and Siting Guidelines, Engineering Design Standards, Standard Conditions of Approval for the processing of small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way in a more expeditious and streamlined manner.

Planning Commission Meetings

Summary of Three Planning Commission Study Sessions

On October 12, 2018, the first Planning Commission study session was held to provide background on the FCC ruling, the City’s current regulations for wireless communication facilities, and recommended approaches for addressing small wireless facilities. A presentation was made concerning the implications of the FCC ruling and responded to detailed questions.

On November 20, 2018, the second Planning Commission study session was held to provide background on Federal Laws governing wireless facilities and how they tie into the current FCC Order. Small wireless design and siting criteria from other communities that have implemented new ordinances were presented by staff and evaluated by the Planning Commission.

In December 2018, after public feedback was received at the November Planning Commission study session, staff created a dedicated webpage on the City’s website regarding small wireless facilities in San Bruno. To view the website, please visit:

https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/smallcells

The website contains the following information:

• Background on the Federal regulations regarding small wireless facilities
• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
• Photos of what the installations may look like
• Meeting Information - Past/Upcoming meeting materials and presentations
• Sign up for email notifications
• Contact information for questions
• Maximum Facility Height. The Design Guidelines include a maximum pole and facility height of 35 feet. The Ordinance maximum for temporary wireless facilities is 50 feet. The Commission discussed changing the maximum height to 50 feet to ensure consistency, or just keeping them different to ensure permanent facilities are as low as possible to ensure compatibility with what is typically considered the prevailing above­ground utility pole and overhead wire heights in most residential neighborhoods in the City. There was not consensus on what the maximum height should be for permanent wireless facilities Support was expressed to ensure that facilities can be the maximum height of 50 feet in an emergency to ensure broader cellular coverage deployment when necessary.
• Graffiti Abatement Requirement. The Commission recommended including the language consistent with the City’s standard planning application condition of approval enabling the City to have its graffiti removal vendor have the graffiti painted out if the permittee does not remove it within 24 hours of being notified of the requirement to remove it.
• Public Notification. The Ordinance includes a public notification radius of 300 feet. The Commission recommended expanding the radius to 500 feet to match the estimated maximum range of the facility. The Commission also recommended that the City disseminate information about submitted applications, including posting online on the City’s website including a map of all cell facilities/towers and all applications and City responses, posting on Next Door, opt-in email list for notification of all applications submitted. The Commission recommended notification of all parents of children attending a school if a facility is proposed on a school site.
• Independent Consultant Review. The Commission supported the Public Works Director engaging an independent consultant to confirm the necessity for closing any “gap in coverage,” and who has knowledge of alternate potential sites and concealment techniques, at the expense of the applicant.
• Appeals Review. The Commission expressed the view that appeals should require a public meeting, rather than City Manager review to ensure there are checks and balances and the opportunity for the public to hear and comment on an appeal or to submit an appeal. Some suggestions were to form a special committee or have a special meeting for appeals.
• Other Ordinance Comments. A detailed list of recommended minor modifications to the Draft Ordinance was provided which were primarily minor clarifications, missing definitions, unnecessary text (in the Purpose and Intent section), and other immaterial changes. In many cases, these are related to clarification and do not make any material changes to the Ordinance or processing requirements.
• Other Design Guidelines Comments. The Commission expressed support for limiting one facility per structure to avoid visual clutter and supported the undergrounding of related equipment underground in any area in which the existing equipment is not primarily located above ground.
• Review by the Public Works Department of applications for ministerial Wireless Facility Permits. After approval of this permit, a subsequent encroachment permit or building permit will be required.
• Peer and Independent Consultant Review of applications at applicant expense. The City does this currently for Radio Frequency analysis and under the Ordinance can also do this for a variety of other items including as whether and to what extent a proposed project will address a gap in the applicant’s wireless services and whether and to what
• Requirements to comply with all aesthetic design guidelines and engineering standards, unless an exception is approved.
• Application of standard conditions of approval
• A public notice will be mailed to all owners of real property and occupants (if different) within three hundred (300) feet of the proposed wireless facility location. The purpose of the notice is to advise the public of the application submittal.
• Before the applicable FCC shot clock expires, the City will send a written notice of decision to the applicant and all parties who requested a copy of the Decision Notice on the application.
• The Director of Public Works has the discretion to grant an exception to the otherwise applicable standards. The Decision can be appealed to the City Manager.
• Right of final appeal to the City Manager. This appeal body is recommended in order to ensure that all appeals can be reviewed and a decision rendered in compliance with the stringent FCC shot clocks.
• Facilities attached to existing wooden utility poles and utility lines.
• Facilities attached to streetlights and traffic signal control poles.
• New freestanding poles.
• A requirement that installations should conceal to the maximum extent feasible with design elements and techniques that mimic or blend with the underlying support structure, surrounding environment and adjacent uses with regard to appearance, size, and location.
• Equipment should be located entirely on the pole in a vertical arrangement. Exterior mounted accessory equipment should be within a single shroud not to exceed 9 cubic feet in volume.
• All equipment (other than the antenna, antenna supports, ancillary wires, cables and any electric meter) should be installed underground in any area where the existing utilities are not primarily located above ground.
• All cables, wires and other connectors should be routed through conduits within poles whenever possible, and all external conduits, conduit attachments, cables, wires and other connectors must be concealed from public view.
• Small wireless facilities should not be installed such that the facility damages existing trees.
• Pole heights shall be minimized, but in no case shall the maximum height of any facilities exceed 50 feet
• The top of the antenna if top mounted should be no higher than 48” above the minimum separation from supply lines required by GO 95. The antenna should be shrouded.
• The extension of the antenna if side mounted should extend no more than 48” from the circumference of the pole.
• Only one equipment shroud, containing all required accessory equipment, should be installed per pole
• New poles are only permitted if: (a) the applicant demonstrates that above-ground support structures near the project site either do not exist or are not reasonably available to the applicant; or (b) the City specifically finds that a new, non-replacement support structure would be more aesthetically desirable and consistent with the objectives of these Guidelines than installations on existing structures near the project site. New poles within open space areas should be designed to resemble trees. Poles not located within open space areas should be designed to resemble existing standalone streetlights in the vicinity.
• Siting location preferences in which Industrial and Combining Industrial zoning districts are the highest ranked preference and low-density residential districts with single-family or two-family residential uses are the least preferred locations.
• New poles are required to replicate the materials, color, and finish of existing infrastructure nearby.
• Facilities should be no closer than 300 feet away, radially, from another small wireless facility.
• Provide clarification
• Keep wording consistent
• Remove duplicate guidelines within the same section
• Add guidelines for relocated poles and ground clearance to all equipment
• Maintenance of the facility
• Compliance with approved plans
• Inspection and access by City staff
• Insurance and indemnity provisions to protect the City
• Performance bonds to ensure the facility is built as approved
• Provisions for removal of the facility if necessary at carrier expense
• Traffic control and non-interference with City utilities and operations
• Permit terms and timing of installation
• Compliance and testing to ensure full adherence to FCC rules for human exposure to RF emissions. The City has the right to conduct its own independent RF Compliance Evaluations
• Maximum Facility Height. Staff recommends 50 feet to ensure maximum ability to ensure compliance with the FCC Order and achieve a desirable aesthetic design based on the wide range of existing conditions of the facility location throughout the entire span of the City’s built environment- which could range from a commercial location to a residential neighborhood. Additionally, while the public initially opposed Verizon’s facility because it was higher than the prevailing infrastructure in the surrounding neighborhood, current public engagement feedback now includes support for taller poles to avoid perceived effect of RF emissions at the pedestrian level and in residences.
• Graffiti Abatement Requirement. This modification has been included in the revised draft Resolution – Section 10: Conditions of Approval, Number 5 “Maintenance Obligations; Vandalism.”
• Other Ordinance Comments. In many cases, these are related to clarification and do not make any material changes to the Ordinance or processing requirements. These edits have been made in the revised draft Ordinance.
• Public Notification: Staff does not support expanding the radius to 300 feet. Consistency is very important in pubic noticing and the state and City standard noticing for public notification is 300 feet.
• Appeals Review. Staff does not recommend any changes to the Ordinance process for appeals except to change the appeal filing timeframe from two days to five days. The draft ordinance contains provisions for public notice and appeal rights consistent with the very short shot clock imposed by the FCC order. It is not feasible for the City to hold a public meeting to review appeals within the new FCC mandated review periods. The application review, decision process, and appeal process in the Ordinance have been developed by staff in order to ensure that these applications are processed under the FCC mandated timelines. This will avoid the undesirable outcome that the shot clock is not complied with, and the applicants issue the City a “deemed approved” letter.
• Maximum Facility Height. Does the City Council support a maximum height of 50 feet to ensure maximum ability to ensure compliance with the FCC Order and achieve a desirable aesthetic design based on the wide range of existing conditions of the facility location throughout the entire span of the City’s built environment?
• Other Ordinance Comments. Does the City Council support the final modifications recommended by the Commission and/or staff primarily related to clarification?
• Other Design Guidelines Modifications. Does the City Council support the final modifications recommended by staff to allow flexibility in the designs?

On January 15, 2019, the third Planning Commission study session was held to provide an update on the FCC Order, and more closely analyze different types of small wireless facilities and potential design and siting criteria. The study session was immediately followed by a community engagement session to obtain public input on preferred design and siting for small wireless facilities in San Bruno.

Summary of Community Engagement Feedback

In preparation for the January community engagement session, staff published an advertisement in the newspaper, noticed the session in the posted Planning Commission agenda, emailed interested parties who asked to noticed, posted the session on the City’s webpage dedicated to Small Wireless Facilities; and announced the meeting on social media (Nextdoor). The session was primarily attended by homeowners who are concerned about the health impacts from RF associated with wireless facilities. Three feedback stations were established for the community engagement session that allowed the public to express their preferences for the type and location of small wireless facilities that would be most appropriate for San Bruno. The stations allowed the community to comment on: pole types; stand-alone pole design options; streetlight pole mounting options; location options; accessory equipment options; and antenna mounting options for wooden utility poles. The feedback indicated that the community has a preference for small wireless facilities that are streetlights, with all equipment enclosed within the pole. There was also a preference for all equipment mounted on wooden utility poles to be shrouded with antennas located at the top, bayonet style, and shrouded within a streamlined cylinder. The community did not express a preference for equipment cabinets that resemble faux benches or trash cans. Location preference was for mid-block siting and at shared property lines instead of in front of residences. Overall, the session was successful in getting the public to think beyond prohibition to address health impacts that the City cannot regulate and focus on the facets of small wireless facilities the City can regulate, primarily design and siting.

Summary of Planning Commission Review of Draft Ordinance and Resolution

On March 19, 2019, the City presented the draft Ordinance and Resolution for review and comment by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission provided feedback to staff on the proposed draft Ordinance and Resolution for consideration by the City Council. As this proposed Ordinance is included in Title 8 of the City’s Municipal Code and not the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission provided feedback only at a study session and was not required to hold a Public Hearing and adopt a Resolution with a formal recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission meeting minutes are provided as Attachment 3 and a list of the comments is provided as Attachment 4.

The Commission provided feedback on a variety of topics and aspects of the Ordinance and Resolution. A few of the key items of discussion at the Commission included the following:

Other detailed design comments included:

- Reduce the 48” width side-mounted radius maximum width.

- Reduce the 20” maximum base for new poles

- Reduce the maximum width of antenna shrouds on streetlights and traffic signal control poles from 14” in diameter or 30 percent greater in diameter than the streetlight pole.

- Sprinklers should be required on the poles.

DISCUSSION:

Ordinance and Resolution Information

The City’s Community and Economic Development Department, Public Works Department, City Attorney, and outside legal counsel have being working collaboratively since October 2018 to address the current regulatory and policy issue by preparing the Draft Small Wireless Facility Ordinance amending Title 8 (Streets, Sidewalks, and Rights-of-Way) of the San Bruno Municipal Code and accompanying Draft Resolution Adopting Design and Siting Guidelines, Engineering Design Standards, and Standard Conditions of Approval for Small Wireless Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way and Within Utility Easements in Public and Private

Properties. The Ordinance sets forth a streamlined procedure for wireless carriers seeking permits for small wireless facilities within the public right-of-way and utility easements in public and private properties, while retaining as much regulatory authority as is allowed under federal and state law.

Because utilities and structures within the City’s public rights-of-way are regulated by Title 8 (Streets, Sidewalks, and Rights-of-Way), small wireless facilities will be administered by the City’s Public Works Department through a newly developed Wireless Facility Permit process and will no longer be regulated by Title 12 (Land Use) which is applicable to uses to wireless facilities not located in the right-of-way and public utility easements on private properties. Encroachment permits for these facilities will be issued as they are now by the Public Works Department when there is an encroachment onto the public right-of-way. Building permits will be administered by the Building Division when placement or construction activities associated with the wireless facilities are limited to a public utility easement, which may be less common.

As a result, the Planning Commission and Planning Division will no longer review the installation of small wireless facilities within the City’s rights-of-way and public utility easements, and decisions will no longer be appealable to the City Council. Instead, the Director of Public Works, or his/her designee will be responsible for reviewing wireless permit applications to install small wireless facilities within the public right-of-way public utility easements on private properties. The Director’s decision will be appealable to the City Manager. This approval process will ensure that these applications are processed under the FCC mandated timelines (“shot clocks”). There are other similar City permit types that do not go before the City Council on appeal, and the City has other approval or appeal bodies whose actions are final. For example, massage certificates are reviewed and issued by the City’s certification officer (the City’s Police Commander), and appealable to a license board. The board’s decisions on appeals constitute a final administrative order with no additional administrative right of appeal.

Applications for wireless facilities on private property (typically referred to as macro facilities) will continue to be regulated by Section 12.220 of the municipal code and administered by Planning staff and the Planning Commission where applicable. This would include new wireless facilities in locations such as City properties or parks.

There are two main parts to how the City will regulate small wireless facilities, the Draft Small Wireless Facilities Ordinance and Draft Resolution with Small Wireless Facilities Design and Siting Guidelines, Engineering Design Standards and Standard Conditions of Approval. Below is staff’s analysis of each.

Ordinance

As stated above, applications for small wireless facilities will be submitted for review and processing to the City’s Public Works Department.

The key features of the draft ordinance include:

extent any technically feasible and/or potentially available alternative sites or concealment techniques may exist.

The Ordinance states: “This is the only San Bruno Municipal Code Chapter that applies to wireless facilities in the public-right-of-way and public utility easements on private properties, and any provisions of Chapter 12.220 that apply to wireless facilities in the right-of-way and public utility easements on private properties do not apply.” With this language, the City does not need to amend Zoning Code Chapter 12.220 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, which will remain in effect and apply to installations on private properties and other locations outside of the right-of-way.

Resolution Adopting Design and Siting Guidelines, Engineering Design Standards and Standard Conditions of Approval

The FCC Order provides guidance for municipalities in establishing design and siting guidelines and engineering design standards for small wireless facilities. The Order states that the requirements must be “(1) reasonable, (2) no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and (3) objective and published in advance. In its Order denying a motion for stay, the FCC provided the following additional guidance regarding small wireless design guidelines.

(“[T]he aesthetic requirements to be published in advance need not prescribe in detail every specification to be mandated for each type of structure in each individual neighborhood. Localities need only set forth the objective standards and criteria that will be applied in a principled manner at a sufficiently clear level of detail as to enable providers to design and propose their deployments in a manner that complies with those standards.”).

Design and Siting Guidelines

The Design and Siting Guidelines permit three types of small wireless facilities.

The Guidelines establish overall design guidelines that are applicable to all structures and design guidelines that are specific to each type of facility. Direction for the Guidelines came from input that was received from the three Planning Commission study sessions and the community engagement session that was held by staff in January. The Guidelines are designed to provide flexibility to respond to the many different location contexts present in San Bruno and streamline the appearance of the facilities as much as possible in an objective manner consistent with the City’s rights to regulate the installation of facilities in the right-of-way, including on the basis of aesthetics. Reasonable limitations on the overall size of the antenna and the pole-mounted accessory equipment are established to reduce obstructions and standardize their appearance.

The key aesthetic design and siting guidelines include:

These are few of the design guidelines that would be established with the purpose to protect and preserve the aesthetics of the community.

The objective of the Guidelines, in regard to facility siting, is to locate them in less prominent locations and regulate the clustering of facilities so as not to overburden any one particular location. As a result of public comment, a meeting with City staff and Verizon to discuss their interest in moving forward with their eight pending current applications, more detailed staff review of the current eight small wireless facility applications from Verizon submitted to the City, and a final round of staff review of the draft aesthetic design and siting guidelines, staff is recommending a number of final changes to the draft Resolution shown in track changes. The final recommended changes serve to:

Additionally, in some cases staff now recommends the word “shall” be changed to “should” to ensure that the Guidelines function as guidelines, and not explicit regulation requirements. This will ensure that the Guidelines do not create barriers to the installations that can be argued effectively prohibit the provision of wireless telecommunications service and are a violation of law. These changes will ensure the City has the ability to process applications in accordance with the FCC Order.

Engineering Design Standards

The objectives of the Engineering Design Standards are to require the applicant show that the placement of the wireless facilities on existing streetlight, traffic signal, and/or utility pole foundations can be accommodated, and future installations on new equipment can accommodate future services to reduce construction related impacts. For existing City owned facilities, such as on street light and traffic signal poles, the applicant must show the poles and foundations can accommodate the new wireless facilities under seismic loading. Disconnect switches are required so Operations staff can turn off the power to the antenna while repairing and maintaining street light heads or traffic signals.

Standard Conditions of Approval

The proposed Ordinance allows for the adoption of standard conditions of approval by City Council Resolution for wireless facilities. All wireless facilities, whether approved by the approval authority or deemed approved or deemed granted by law will be automatically subject to all such standard conditions of approval.

The key standard conditions of approval relate to practical matters of construction and operation and would include:

The standard conditions of approval also provide a section for any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing facility that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such facility (Section 6409 Approvals) and provide a section that states the City through granting of permits does not waive any standing by the City to challenge any FCC orders or rules related to small cell facilities, or any modification to those FCC orders or rules.

Planning Commission Review and Input

Major issues presented by the Planning Commission are summarized in the Background section and in Attachment 4. Responses are provided to the major items raised by the Planning Commission that staff examined in more detail.

Attachment 4 includes the full list of comments the Commission made to change the proposed Ordinance or Resolution that staff is not recommending be reflected in revisions because they would either be challenging to accomplish within the shot clocks and application processing regulations of the FCC Order and/ or not be likely to withstand legal challenge that they effectively prohibit the provision of wireless telecommunications service and are a violation of law.

Public Comment

The City received two public comment letters on this item included as Attachment 5. Staff met with the attorneys from Mackenzie and Albritton LLP to review their comments. As a result of that meeting and, staff is recommending a number of final changes to the draft Resolution shown in track changes to address some issues raised that staff is in agreement with changing. While the letter raises concerns with many components of the Ordinance such as the public notification, staff maintains that the Ordinance contains a process and provisions that are in compliance with the provisions of the Order that relate to these items.

Items for Council to Consider

Staff is seeking input on the Draft Ordinance and Resolution. Specifically, staff is seeking feedback on the items listed under “Planning Commission Review and Input” above that staff is recommending changing in response to Commission input. These include:

NEXT STEPS

With input and direction received from this meeting, staff will finalize the Ordinance and Resolution for adoption by the City Council at a public hearing.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Council direction on this topic is not anticipated to have a direct fiscal impact on the City’s budget.

The Full DRAFT Ordinance can be read on the City's web site

====

FULL Council Agenda Packet WITH Staff Reports can be viewed and downloaded from:

https://sanbruno.ca.gov/gov/elected_officials/city_council_minutes_n_agendas.htm

This document should be available late Thursday or Friday before the Tuesday Council Meeting

====

Robert Riechel

Send your articles and photos to:

E=Mail: SanBrunoPatch.Robert@Yahoo.com

WEB: http://SanBrunoPatch.com

Photo Credit: San Bruno CA Patch Archives

Source Credit: San Bruno CA City Council

Web Site: https://sanbruno.ca.gov

Phone: City Clerk - 650 – 616 - 7070

CLICK on link below to Subscribe to News Alerts and a Daily Email Newsletter for San Bruno Patch

http://link.patch.com/join/3-0-subscribe?list=US_CA_SANBRUNO_282

#SanBrunoPatch